P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks, reality or fiction?

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction?
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

Do you happen to know what the real kill rate was at Falaise? The
Typhoons were supposed to have just about wiped out every bit of useful
armour

The battlefield examination team found 33 armoured vehicles
that had been the victim of air attack. The original RAF and
USAF claim was for 391 -- about three times as much as the
total number of wrecked tanks and other vehicles on the
battlefield, and probably also about three times the number

The battlelfield examination team was made up of ground forces with a vested
interest in minimising the effectiveness of air attack vs artillery. According
to them air attack was near worthless. And we know that not to be true. Don't
believe everything you read.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
From: (Tony Williams)
Date: 8/7/03 11:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time

he evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223
Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted
from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). Dur

Of course these investigating teams belonged to the ground forces and had a
strong vested interest in elevating the effectiveness of ground fire vs air

Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to
chief-of-staff level. The whole point of OA was to try to get a bias-free,
scientific look at what was actually happening which was as free as
possible from any bias. It was actually one of the effective tools which
Britain introduced which - in some cases at least, like routing atlantic
convoys - made a real difference to the way the war went.

OA would have been going well out of its way to try not to bring any
bias or baggage to the investigation. IIRc the conclusion was that
fighter-bombers were not effective at destroying tanks, but were very
effective at destroying tank formations, advances and distupting retreats
by destroying the supporting soft-skin vehicles, though I'd have to check
that to be sure. This, of course, meant that they were effective enough
to be going on with, though improved methods of attacking the tanks
themselves were (again, IIRC) recommended for research..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

German vehicles on the move commonly had extra fuel and ammo stowed
outside, and reports of burning tanks may well have come from that kind
of thing. Something the German tanks did have a problem with was
strafing attacks that wreaked the cooling systems, and many late war
machines had improvised shields to keep bullets out of the cooling
inlets. Such a hit wouldn't have a dramatic reaction (no immediate fire
or explosions), but would quickly disable the tank all the same. And
there was a psychological effect, the volume of fire must have been
terrible to witness at the receiving end. Even if a tanker was largely
safe while buttoned up, it would be difficult to really believe it, and
at the same time his supporting troops and supplies were being
destroyed, which would still put him out of the fight. Finally,
considering the "accuracy" of a strafing run (and the the tales fighter
jocks would tell) and the known facts of armor and ballistics, it may
have simply been a matter of getting the shot pattern on the column of
vehicles at all, and then claiming miracle marksmanship. I have no doubt
that the pilots thought they were doing what they claimed, but my
experience with them was that they had a rather inflated opinion of
themselves and their prowess.

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
From: (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
Date: 8/8/03 7:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

article ,
ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
From:

(Tony Williams)
Date: 8/7/03 11:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time

he evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
were destroyed by air attack. A

ritish War Office analysis of 223
Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted
from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). Dur

Of course these investigating teams belonged to the ground

rces and had a
strong vested interest in elevating the effectiveness of ground fire vs air

Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to

All the more reason. Buck privates didn'l give a damn. High level officers had
their careers at stake


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

ArtKramr wrote:

Of course these investigating teams belonged to the ground forces and had a
strong vested interest in elevating the effectiveness of ground fire vs air

Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to
chief-of-staff level. The whole point of OA was to try to get a bias-free,
scientific look at what was actually happening which was as free as

That may have been the goal but I wonder how well it was pursued. Elimination
of "bias" can be a tricky effort.

Isn't the Strategic Bombing Survey done after WWII, considered somewhat
suspect as well? The survey basically concluded that strategic bombing
didn't accomplish much. Apparently all done by ground officers with the
alleged goal of undermining air power in favor of grunt power.

Certainly not saying air power won the war as many upper echelon AF
people might claim, but definitely a power force in shaping the battlefield
and warfare.


SMH

In article ,
ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
From: (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
From:

(Tony Williams)
Date: 8/7/03 11:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time

he evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
were destroyed by air attack. A
Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to

All the more reason. Buck privates didn'l give a damn. High level officers had
their careers at stake

Not officers, and IIRC not even service. OA was handled through other
channels, with a lot of the analysis being civilian (IIRC) for
precisely that reason. They had to be able to trample heavily on very
senior toes without fear of comeback (example: E.J. Williams, who'd
been head of Physics here, was IIRC the guy who told the Admiralty their
entire convoy signal code was compromised - and could back it up with
OA evidence: that must have trampled some toes in the signals branch)

-- Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
From: Stephen Harding
Date: 8/8/03 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

sn't the Strategic Bombing Survey done after WWII, considered somewhat
suspect as well? The survey basically concluded that strategic bombing
didn't accomplish much. Apparently all done by ground officers with the
alleged goal of undermining air power in favor of grunt power.

Certainly not saying air power won the war as many upper echelon AF
people might claim, but definitely a power force in shaping the battlefield
and warfare.


SMH




Not just suspect but by now quite discredited. Remember it was not a military
report, it was an economic one.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article , Emmanuel Gustin
writes
The battlefield examination team found 33 armoured vehicles
that had been the victim of air attack. The original RAF and
USAF claim was for 391 -- about three times as much as the
total number of wrecked tanks and other vehicles on the
battlefield, and probably also about three times the number
the German had, as they lost almost everything.

I'm unfamiliar with the battle, but if air attack only got 33, what got
the rest (assuming about 130 vehicles were destroyed from the above
numbers)?

--
John

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction?
From: John Halliwell
Date: 8/8/03 4:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article , Emmanuel Gustin
writes
The battlefield examination team found 33 armoured vehicles
that had been the victim of air attack. The original RAF and
USAF claim was for 391 -- about three times as much as the
total number of wrecked tanks and other vehicles on the
battlefield, and probably also about three times the number
the German had, as they lost almost everything.

I'm unfamiliar with the battle, but if air attack only got 33, what got
the rest (assuming about 130 vehicles were destroyed from the above
numbers)?

--
John

Now there is a truly interesting question. (grin)

Arthur Kramer



The first page I found on the battle has a photo of U.S. infantrymen,
backed by a column of M10 tank destroyers.

Do you suppose they might have got some?

Dave

From what I read here, the usual suspects were not that useful on tanks.

a) What air assets were, in that era?

b) Moving ahead, what later weapons were more sucessful? (Assume we
can stop when we reach the GAU-8 but before?)

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433